Matchfixing is a very serious offence and accusations of matchfixing should not be made lightly. Please avoid making accusations against specific individuals unless you have substantial proof, or until further information is released. (0620 KST)
On January 21 2015 05:35 Doodsmack wrote: Honestly don't know why this is deserving of front page TL news. Is it really newsworthy that a betting site voided bets? Because it's very far from proven that any matchfixing occurred. That should be reason enough for this not to be front page community news.
All we know is that a lot of bets were placed on Dark late and San didn't play very well. If you claim based on that that you think matchfixing occurred, then you need to learn what a leap of logic is.
Of course this is news worthy.
The only thing we know is that Pinnacle has suspicions of betting manipulation. It's not a far leap to assume their suspicions are correct as this is their business and they are a major, major player.
But this leaves us with so many questions.
We just don't know who or why the betting was manipulated. Could they be testing the fraud detection? Could they have found some flaw in Pinnacle's software they tried to exploit? Was some Saudi prince drunk one night / lost a bar bet? And of course, was the match actually fixed?
Clearly we don't know which if any are the case. But most of the possibilities would have pretty serious consequences for SC2 no?
eSports is hardly a squeaky clean business despite what we wish for, remember the all the fake / shady teams? Remember Solar being offered money to throw a game (thanks for the reminder Aeromi)? Remember how Coco-Byun were banned for actually fixing a game? (even if you think Coco - Byun were messing around, Coco still literally threw the game).
Edit: Oh ya, WCS Axiom, just #1230981203981 for why I'm a Crank anti-fan.
Is it newsworthy enough to be front page community news? Pinnacle itself, and SC2 betting, are not common topics on here that in and of themselves would be newsworthy. The newsworthy part of it is the potential matchfixing, which is very far from being proven.
All Pinnacle knows is that a lot of money was placed on Dark. That's the sum total of the evidence. Pinnacle's reputation and stature don't have anything to do with the evidence. All they're saying is they noticed an unlikely coincedence.
Based only on an unlikely coincendence, TL has made an accusation front page community news. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
On January 21 2015 05:35 Doodsmack wrote: Honestly don't know why this is deserving of front page TL news. Is it really newsworthy that a betting site voided bets? Because it's very far from proven that any matchfixing occurred. That should be reason enough for this not to be front page community news.
All we know is that a lot of bets were placed on Dark late and San didn't play very well. If you claim based on that that you think matchfixing occurred, then you need to learn what a leap of logic is.
Of course this is news worthy.
The only thing we know is that Pinnacle has suspicions of betting manipulation. It's not a far leap to assume their suspicions are correct as this is their business and they are a major, major player.
But this leaves us with so many questions.
We just don't know who or why the betting was manipulated. Could they be testing the fraud detection? Could they have found some flaw in Pinnacle's software they tried to exploit? Was some Saudi prince drunk one night / lost a bar bet? And of course, was the match actually fixed?
Clearly we don't know which if any are the case. But most of the possibilities would have pretty serious consequences for SC2 no?
eSports is hardly a squeaky clean business despite what we wish for, remember the all the fake / shady teams? Remember Solar being offered money to throw a game (thanks for the reminder Aeromi)? Remember how Coco-Byun were banned for actually fixing a game? (even if you think Coco - Byun were messing around, Coco still literally threw the game).
Edit: Oh ya, WCS Axiom, just #1230981203981 for why I'm a Crank anti-fan.
Is it newsworthy enough to be front page community news? Pinnacle itself, and SC2 betting, are not common topics on here that in and of themselves would be newsworthy. The newsworthy part of it is the potential matchfixing, which is very far from being proven.
All Pinnacle knows is that a lot of money was placed on Dark. That's the sum total of the evidence. Pinnacle's reputation and stature don't have anything to do with the evidence. All they're saying is they noticed an unlikely coincedence.
Based only on an unlikely coincendence, TL has made an accusation front page community news. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
They are not only saying "they noticed an unlikely coincidece"
On January 21 2015 06:08 OtherWorld wrote: This thread is a huge mess.
Is there a strange betting pattern? Yes, Pinnacle says so.
Is there evidence (and I am saying ACTUAL EVIDENCE, not conjecture) that the match was fixed, let alone that San in particular was payed to throw the game? No, nothing indicates that.
So people should really stop talking shit on San for no reason whatsoever. It's fucking innocent until proved guilty, not the opposite. Besides, that's not our job to investigate on this, it's KeSPA's.
On January 21 2015 06:05 boxerfred wrote: This thread needs a mod note.
What could that mean other than players were involved?
The math adds up to San threw the match. He's the one person that could control this outcome. At this point I think the onus is on him and KESPA to show that he didn't.
The burden of proof is on the accuser. To say "a lot of money was bet on Dark, and Dark won, therefore San is guilty" is far from meeting the burden of proof.
On January 21 2015 05:35 Doodsmack wrote: Honestly don't know why this is deserving of front page TL news. Is it really newsworthy that a betting site voided bets? Because it's very far from proven that any matchfixing occurred. That should be reason enough for this not to be front page community news.
All we know is that a lot of bets were placed on Dark late and San didn't play very well. If you claim based on that that you think matchfixing occurred, then you need to learn what a leap of logic is.
Of course this is news worthy.
The only thing we know is that Pinnacle has suspicions of betting manipulation. It's not a far leap to assume their suspicions are correct as this is their business and they are a major, major player.
But this leaves us with so many questions.
We just don't know who or why the betting was manipulated. Could they be testing the fraud detection? Could they have found some flaw in Pinnacle's software they tried to exploit? Was some Saudi prince drunk one night / lost a bar bet? And of course, was the match actually fixed?
Clearly we don't know which if any are the case. But most of the possibilities would have pretty serious consequences for SC2 no?
eSports is hardly a squeaky clean business despite what we wish for, remember the all the fake / shady teams? Remember Solar being offered money to throw a game (thanks for the reminder Aeromi)? Remember how Coco-Byun were banned for actually fixing a game? (even if you think Coco - Byun were messing around, Coco still literally threw the game).
Edit: Oh ya, WCS Axiom, just #1230981203981 for why I'm a Crank anti-fan.
Is it newsworthy enough to be front page community news? Pinnacle itself, and SC2 betting, are not common topics on here that in and of themselves would be newsworthy. The newsworthy part of it is the potential matchfixing, which is very far from being proven.
All Pinnacle knows is that a lot of money was placed on Dark. That's the sum total of the evidence. Pinnacle's reputation and stature don't have anything to do with the evidence. All they're saying is they noticed an unlikely coincedence.
Based only on an unlikely coincendence, TL has made an accusation front page community news. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
They are not only saying "they noticed an unlikely coincidece"
So don't hate on us.... a big company issued a press release saying SC2 was played on an unfair basis.
Pinnacle's only evidence for saying it wasn't played on a fair basis is that they noticed an unlikely coincedence. Pinnacle is in fact stating an opinion. Again, all Pinnacle knows is that a lot of money was bet on Dark.
On January 21 2015 05:35 Doodsmack wrote: Honestly don't know why this is deserving of front page TL news. Is it really newsworthy that a betting site voided bets? Because it's very far from proven that any matchfixing occurred. That should be reason enough for this not to be front page community news.
All we know is that a lot of bets were placed on Dark late and San didn't play very well. If you claim based on that that you think matchfixing occurred, then you need to learn what a leap of logic is.
Of course this is news worthy.
The only thing we know is that Pinnacle has suspicions of betting manipulation. It's not a far leap to assume their suspicions are correct as this is their business and they are a major, major player.
But this leaves us with so many questions.
We just don't know who or why the betting was manipulated. Could they be testing the fraud detection? Could they have found some flaw in Pinnacle's software they tried to exploit? Was some Saudi prince drunk one night / lost a bar bet? And of course, was the match actually fixed?
Clearly we don't know which if any are the case. But most of the possibilities would have pretty serious consequences for SC2 no?
eSports is hardly a squeaky clean business despite what we wish for, remember the all the fake / shady teams? Remember Solar being offered money to throw a game (thanks for the reminder Aeromi)? Remember how Coco-Byun were banned for actually fixing a game? (even if you think Coco - Byun were messing around, Coco still literally threw the game).
Edit: Oh ya, WCS Axiom, just #1230981203981 for why I'm a Crank anti-fan.
Is it newsworthy enough to be front page community news? Pinnacle itself, and SC2 betting, are not common topics on here that in and of themselves would be newsworthy. The newsworthy part of it is the potential matchfixing, which is very far from being proven.
All Pinnacle knows is that a lot of money was placed on Dark. That's the sum total of the evidence. Pinnacle's reputation and stature don't have anything to do with the evidence. All they're saying is they noticed an unlikely coincedence.
Based only on an unlikely coincendence, TL has made an accusation front page community news. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Like I said, what conclusions are there that wouldn't be front-page news?
It would be nice if people didn't fly off the handle with the accusations (on both sides), but that doesn't make this not news.
My takeaway from this is that we only have one piece of data: One betting company claims they saw suspicious betting on a game. You've got to take several logical leaps to get from that to the conclusion that San threw the game for money.
Leap 1: Pinnacle says there was a suspicious betting pattern -> There was in fact a suspicious betting pattern. This seems like a fair conclusion, but we don't actually have the data.
Leap 2: There was in fact a suspicious betting pattern -> The pattern is actually meaningful. I assume "suspicious" means that patterns of betting fell outside the statistically expected norm. By definition that's going to be a rare event, but it could just be statistical noise. If you sample enough events you're going to get outliers. This leap still seems reasonable to me, if less so than Leap 1.
Leap 3: The pattern is actually meaningful -> The inside information that led to the suspicious bets was that San was going to throw the game. Even assuming that someone had inside information about the game's outcome and bet using it, isn't it possible that someone leaked that San was barely practicing due to health issues? Maybe he lost every single practice game, and that information leaked and someone bet based on it.
It's obviously one possible conclusion that San agreed to throw the game for money, but that's an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and there is barely any evidence at all.
On January 21 2015 05:35 Doodsmack wrote: Honestly don't know why this is deserving of front page TL news. Is it really newsworthy that a betting site voided bets? Because it's very far from proven that any matchfixing occurred. That should be reason enough for this not to be front page community news.
All we know is that a lot of bets were placed on Dark late and San didn't play very well. If you claim based on that that you think matchfixing occurred, then you need to learn what a leap of logic is.
Of course this is news worthy.
The only thing we know is that Pinnacle has suspicions of betting manipulation. It's not a far leap to assume their suspicions are correct as this is their business and they are a major, major player.
But this leaves us with so many questions.
We just don't know who or why the betting was manipulated. Could they be testing the fraud detection? Could they have found some flaw in Pinnacle's software they tried to exploit? Was some Saudi prince drunk one night / lost a bar bet? And of course, was the match actually fixed?
Clearly we don't know which if any are the case. But most of the possibilities would have pretty serious consequences for SC2 no?
eSports is hardly a squeaky clean business despite what we wish for, remember the all the fake / shady teams? Remember Solar being offered money to throw a game (thanks for the reminder Aeromi)? Remember how Coco-Byun were banned for actually fixing a game? (even if you think Coco - Byun were messing around, Coco still literally threw the game).
Edit: Oh ya, WCS Axiom, just #1230981203981 for why I'm a Crank anti-fan.
Is it newsworthy enough to be front page community news? Pinnacle itself, and SC2 betting, are not common topics on here that in and of themselves would be newsworthy. The newsworthy part of it is the potential matchfixing, which is very far from being proven.
All Pinnacle knows is that a lot of money was placed on Dark. That's the sum total of the evidence. Pinnacle's reputation and stature don't have anything to do with the evidence. All they're saying is they noticed an unlikely coincedence.
Based only on an unlikely coincendence, TL has made an accusation front page community news. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Like I said, what conclusions are there that wouldn't be front-page news?
It would be nice if people didn't fly off the handle with the accusations (on both sides), but that doesn't make this not news.
It's the fact that there aren't conclusions that makes it not news. I've never seen TL put forth an unproven accusation as community news.
Someone from ST-YFW let slip to Mr. X that San went to the hospital, his health isn't on the mend, and has started to practice less on top of that. Mr. X has done his homework, he puts a lot of money on Dark and wins. Looks like matchfixing from outside, is actually very diligent betting from Mr. X.
Until Pinnacle or KeSPA release some actual facts about the allegations (unlikely), my curiosity has been perfectly sated.
I hope the match is fully investigated; we know that the potential for match-fixing will always exist in the Starcraft scene. If the investigation reveals nothing then San's name is cleared, if it reveals something fishy then it's better to have that knowledge public than to have the match-fixers encouraged to continue their dirty work in secret.
I don't think it's slanderous to San to just say that the match was suspicious due to betting patterns, slanderous would be saying "he definitely received a bribe and threw the match." It could very well be an information leak about his condition, which makes the match betting unfair but San himself innocent.
About the game itself, I would have called Dark the slight-to-moderate favorite, but not the overwhelming one; I myself have San on my FPL team and was thinking there was a reasonable chance he could use some cheese or timing to take the match.
On January 21 2015 06:27 pure.Wasted wrote: Someone from ST-YFW let slip to Mr. X that San went to the hospital, his health isn't on the mend, and has started to practice less on top of that. Mr. X has done his homework, he puts a lot of money on Dark and wins. Looks like matchfixing from outside, is actually very diligent betting from Mr. X.
Until Pinnacle or KeSPA release some actual facts about the allegations (unlikely), my curiosity has been perfectly sated.
That seems like the most likely explanation. Information was leaked unintentionally, and someone was able to profit akin to insider-trading. But impossible to blame San for that. I would be curious to know how this would be handled in the sports-betting world... do players have an obligation to report medical incidents of this nature?
On January 21 2015 06:08 OtherWorld wrote: This thread is a huge mess.
Is there a strange betting pattern? Yes, Pinnacle says so.
Is there evidence (and I am saying ACTUAL EVIDENCE, not conjecture) that the match was fixed, let alone that San in particular was payed to throw the game? No, nothing indicates that.
So people should really stop talking shit on San for no reason whatsoever. It's fucking innocent until proved guilty, not the opposite. Besides, that's not our job to investigate on this, it's KeSPA's.
On January 21 2015 06:05 boxerfred wrote: This thread needs a mod note.
What could that mean other than players were involved?
The math adds up to San threw the match. He's the one person that could control this outcome. At this point I think the onus is on him and KESPA to show that he didn't.
Pinnacle probably knows very well about betting patterns, I'll give them that. But unless they have further evidence, there are no ways for them to know if there is match fixing or if, as others said, the information of San playing badly and being injured somehow leaked and one smartass thought he could make money with it. And no, it's not up to San to show he's innocent. It's up to the accusators to show factual evidence. Afaik unregular betting patterns don't count as proofs once in court.
On January 21 2015 05:56 Keeemy wrote: Wtf is Pinnacle? Never heard of it... T__T
People should stfu if there is no real evidence.
Think of pinnacle like the google/microsoft/apple of the online betting world. That's how big they are. They aren't just some random scrub site taking esports bets. People who claim that pinnacle just doesn't want to pay out do not understand the betting world at all and shouldn't comment on it. Esports betting is a fraction of their business and small potatoes for them. To claim they want to just avoid paying out is like saying someone would go to great lengths just to avoid paying someone 1 cent.
On January 21 2015 06:08 OtherWorld wrote: This thread is a huge mess.
Is there a strange betting pattern? Yes, Pinnacle says so.
Is there evidence (and I am saying ACTUAL EVIDENCE, not conjecture) that the match was fixed, let alone that San in particular was payed to throw the game? No, nothing indicates that.
So people should really stop talking shit on San for no reason whatsoever. It's fucking innocent until proved guilty, not the opposite. Besides, that's not our job to investigate on this, it's KeSPA's.
On January 21 2015 06:05 boxerfred wrote: This thread needs a mod note.
What could that mean other than players were involved?
The math adds up to San threw the match. He's the one person that could control this outcome. At this point I think the onus is on him and KESPA to show that he didn't.
Pinnacle probably knows very well about betting patterns, I'll give them that. But unless they have further evidence, there are no ways for them to know if there is match fixing or if, as others said, the information of San playing badly and being injured somehow leaked and one smartass thought he could make money with it. And no, it's not up to San to show he's innocent. It's up to the accusators to show factual evidence. Afaik unregular betting patterns don't count as proofs once in court.
So if nothing more is said about this, you'll just continue to watch PL like everything is fine?
This guy claims to have evidence it was fixed. Very interesting. Make sure to read all his tweets.
I find it hilarious that any time a Protoss player have news on them you'll be the first one to criticize or post something completely bias and against them; making them out to be a antagonist in the situation. If we were to act like this in the real world, you'd be classified as a member of an organization wearing white robes and pointy ghost hats.
EPT
